EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62008TN0031
Case T-31/08: Action brought on 23 January 2008 — Quantum v OHIM — Quantum Corporation (Quantum CORPORATION)
Case T-31/08: Action brought on 23 January 2008 — Quantum v OHIM — Quantum Corporation (Quantum CORPORATION)
Case T-31/08: Action brought on 23 January 2008 — Quantum v OHIM — Quantum Corporation (Quantum CORPORATION)
OJ C 92, 12.4.2008, p. 31–32
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
|
12.4.2008 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 92/31 |
Action brought on 23 January 2008 — Quantum v OHIM — Quantum Corporation (Quantum CORPORATION)
(Case T-31/08)
(2008/C 92/65)
Language in which the application was lodged: English
Parties
Applicant: Quantum Corp. (San Jose, United States) (represented by: J. Barry, Sollicitor)
Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs)
Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Quantum Corporation Ltd (Lefkosia, Cyprus)
Form of order sought
|
— |
The decision of the First Board of Appeal of 17 October 2007 in Case R 1271/2006-1 be annulled; |
|
— |
appeal number R 1271/2006-1 be allowed; |
|
— |
opposition number B 936 288 be permitted to stand and proceedings to continue; |
|
— |
OHIM pay Quantum's costs both in these proceedings and in the appeal proceedings before the OHIM. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
Applicant for the Community trade mark: Quantum Corporation Limited
Community trade mark concerned: The figurative Community trade mark composed of the sign ‘Q’ containing word elements ‘QUANTUM CORPORATION’ for goods and services in classes 35, 36 and 42 — Application No 3 773 355
Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The applicant
Mark or sign cited: The national and Community word marks ‘QUANTUM’ for goods and services in class 9 and the Community figurative mark ‘Q’ for goods and services in classes 9 and 42
Decision of the Opposition Division: Declared the opposition inadmissible
Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal
Pleas in law: The applicant claims that the contested decision is based on incorrect facts as it fails to take into account the existence and nature of the opposition guidelines. The applicant further submits that the contested decision breached its legitimate expectation that the practice outlined in the opposition guidelines would be factually correct, since other potential opponents could also have relied on them. Further, the applicant contends that it had a legitimate expectation that the guidelines would be followed and that it would receive a ‘standard letter 208’ requiring it to file a translation of its writ in order to comply with the formal requirements. Finally, the applicant claims that OHIM must incur liability pursuant to Article 114 of Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 in respect of its failure to comply with its obligations to provide up-to-date and accurate guidelines.